What is an assault rifle?

Captain America said:

I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

I plan to hunt until the day I can hunt no more, Lord willing. And I intend on keeping Roscoe close by to defend myself if need be.

But these gun nutters that insist on defending their ability on keeping these super dooper weapons around, that were designed to assault and solely for the purpose of taking human lives, are starting to scare me a bit. I used to identify with them but here lately I am wondering if it's not, in fact, those people that we need to protect ourselves from. It seems their desire to have their nutsack's tickled by the latest, greatest, killing machines at the expense of 6 and 7 year olds makes me question THEIR mental conditions. I dunno. Jury is still out with me.

Click to expand...

A very reasonable position Captain, and I think one shared by most rational thinking gun owners.

Catawba said:

You missed the well regulated part.

Click to expand...

Actually, you did. Regulations at the time of the founders meant the militia was to drill under officers, being that it's a subordinate clause none of the "militia argument" is even relevant. In other words, the only full sentence is the non-infringement clause. Isn't reading grand!

Captain America said:

I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

Click to expand...

What about collectors? Again, the second amendment is a right. In a free country, we should not have to justify a right.

I plan to hunt until the day I can hunt no more, Lord willing. And I intend on keeping Roscoe close by to defend myself if need be.

But these gun nutters that insist on defending their ability on keeping these super dooper weapons around, that were designed to assault and solely for the purpose of taking human lives, are starting to scare me a bit. I used to identify with them but here lately I am wondering if it's not, in fact, those people that we need to protect ourselves from. It seems their desire to have their nutsack's tickled by the latest, greatest, killing machines at the expense of 6 and 7 year olds makes me question THEIR mental conditions. I dunno. Jury is still out with me.

Click to expand...

Alright; which 6 or 7 year olds would be saved from a ban of these yet to be defined "killing machines?" Are you saying the only use for an AR-15 is killing sprees? Why would a 9mm pistol be any less effective?

Captain America said:

I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

I plan to hunt until the day I can hunt no more, Lord willing. And I intend on keeping Roscoe close by to defend myself if need be.

But these gun nutters that insist on defending their ability on keeping these super dooper weapons around, that were designed to assault and solely for the purpose of taking human lives, are starting to scare me a bit. I used to identify with them but here lately I am wondering if it's not, in fact, those people that we need to protect ourselves from. It seems their desire to have their nutsack's tickled by the latest, greatest, killing machines at the expense of 6 and 7 year olds makes me question THEIR mental conditions. I dunno. Jury is still out with me.

Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with this attitude. There comes a point, early on in forming your defense plan, at which you must ask yourself what kind of firearm (if any) you would employ to defend yourself, your family and your property and against what threat(s). I have chosen a semi-auto handgun, in a modest caliber (.380). I have no need for long range, to penetrate through walls/armor and prefer low recoil for greater control/accuracy of follow up shots. While the range of a rifle and the stopping power of a larger round would be a plus, they also pose other problems; one of these, maneuverabiliy, is enhanced by the "assault" rifle's shorter barrel length. I still do not want, or need, a round powerful enough to go through several walls, so I decided on my pistol. If I intended to hunt deer with my home defense weapon, and only own one firearm, then that may make me lean toward an "assault" rifle, but I prefer the range/accuracy of a bolt action .270 rifle for that purpose, and I can get a home defense pistol, a deer rifle, years and years of ammo for both and still have plenty of money left over for far less than an "assault" rifle costs.

LaMidRighter said:

Regulations at the time of the founders meant the militia was to drill under officers

Click to expand...

Exactly, thank you. The right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

Catawba said:

Exactly, thank you. The right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

Click to expand...

Congratulations on your dishonesty, I qualified that statement later didn't I? Can't win the argument change the framing of it huh?

Edit - I sure did

LaMidRighter said:

Actually, you did. Regulations at the time of the founders meant the militia was to drill under officers, being that it's a subordinate clause none of the "militia argument" is even relevant. In other words, the only full sentence is the non-infringement clause. Isn't reading grand!

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Click to expand...

Well, you have to realize that this is basically an opinion piece, with absolutely no statistics or evidence to confirm these claims. I have lived in large cities all over LA, and the vast majority of gang related crimes I hear reported involve pistols. So if you can find some proof of your claims with evidence, I would appreciate it.

Oh, and many of those weapons listed are not "Assault Rifles", specifically the TEC-9 and Uzi. Those are sub-machine guns, or "machine pistols", not "Assault Rifles" at all.

Oh, and those weapons you just listed? None of them was used in Stockton. That was a Type 56 (Chinese AK copy) and a Taurus PT-92, a Brazilian copy of the Beretta. Not an Uzi, not a TEC-9. So basically the claims made are all pretty much busted. Columbine had a TEC-9, but not an Uzi. And at Columbine they had many weapons, including shotguns and bombs.

Catawba said:

In what well regulated militia are you actively serving?

Click to expand...

US Army.

LaMidRighter said:

Educate yourself further on the subject before you issue more incorrect statements about firearms.

Click to expand...

This is why I so often laugh at such claims. They are made by people that are totally ignorant in weapons. Much like the earlier claims that it is the round, then the same person turns right around and mentions weapons that use pistol ammunition.

Shifting definitions, shifting qualifications, not any kind of real answer.

Manc Skipper said:

Perhaps we need to clarify what an assault RIFLE as opposed to an assault WEAPON means. My understanding is that an assault rifle is capable of automatic or burst fire, with a detachable magazine, firing an intermediate cartridge, and is generally issued to armed forces.
An assault weapon is something slightly less effective as a killing machine, but with the features pictured in James' confused OP.
Many assault weapons such as the Bushmaster, come in different configurations depending of which state's restrictions you wish to avoid.

Click to expand...

Nope, wrong. And several people (including me) have already posted the definitions in various states as well as the US of what an "Assault Rifle" is.

Any sutomatic or burst weapon does not count, because these are already prohitited by other laws.

MAC-10 and the Uzi fire pistol cartridges, not an "intermediate cartridge" at all.

And a great many weapons fall under the shifting definitions. What if I made an M-16 clone, chambered it to 9mm, and installed an internal 100 round drum that is fixed to the weapon? By following your definition, it is no longer an "assault weapon". But it can kill far more people then a standard M-16.

Heck, in the hands of somebody who is trained, a bolt action rifle is far more deadly then a semi-automatic one. Why do you think the majority of snipers use bolt action weapons?

Captain America said:

I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

Click to expand...

You claim to be a hunter, fine. How many hunters do you know that use the M1 or a variant of it for hunting?

A lot of them, I know that is one of the rifles my uncle uses. In California, that is an "Assault Rifle". And no question, it was designed for the US Army, for killing Germans, Italians and Japanese.

I can take offensive action and storm just about any place I want with a Ruger 10/22, or a baseball bat. I could even do it with a bolt-action weapon like the M-1903 Springfield.

It is not the weapon that does the assault, it is the person. And trust me when I say I could kill a lot more people with a Springfield then some moron with an "Assault rifle" doing "spray and pray".

Why? Because I am trained, I have the experience, and I would operate smartly. Heck, in 2002 we had 9 killed and 3 wounded, pretty much one at a time by such an individual. Operated at a distance, killed one at a time from hiding, and moved on. If not for cops getting lucky the Betlway Sniper may have killed a lot more people. And yes, he used an M-16, but people like Charles Whitman did even better, with much older weapons.

Oozlefinch said:

Well, you have to realize that this is basically an opinion piece, with absolutely no statistics or evidence to confirm these claims. I have lived in large cities all over LA, and the vast majority of gang related crimes I hear reported involve pistols. So if you can find some proof of your claims with evidence, I would appreciate it

Click to expand...

.

BS, I've read countless reports from both the US and Mexico that said the same thing as the Police Chief stated, and I put much more stock in their assessments than I do yours.

If you feel pistols are superior weapons, you should in no way be inconvenienced by a ban on assault weapons.

You claim to be a hunter, fine. How many hunters do you know that use the M1 or a variant of it for hunting?

Click to expand...

I can only speak of the hunters I know. Not for all of them, of course. And the answer to your question is zero. Zilch. None. Nada.

But, (disclaimer) I am not a gun expert so I am not sure what is or is not considered to be an M1 variant.

I did, however, hunt with an M1 carbine, 1943 issue, when I was a kid. It was either that or a shotgun. That's all I had available to me. I never killed anything with it though. It had a 30 round banana clip and it looked way cool though. It wasn't nearly as accurate as the guns I use now.

In MY deer hunting circle, we have three 30.06 hunters. One Winchester 30.30 lever action hunter (I've offered him some of my other more accurate guns but he prefers his 30.30.)

Once, and only once, I took my Chinese SKS out hunting. I totally blew away a doe with it. The woods lit up! Rata-ta-a-tata-tat! It was awesome. It scared the rest of the guys in our woods. They said they hit the ground when I started shooting. They kindly asked me not to use it again up there. So, I didn't.

clownboy said:

I'd agree with you but for the knowledge that the second was put in place in large part to keep a populace armed to a point where the government could not "overthrow" them. So the population would have a defense against runaway government.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of gun nutters that use that excuse. There may be some validity to it. Look what's happening over in Syria.

Catawba said:

.

BS, I've read countless reports from both the US and Mexico that said the same thing as the Police Chief stated, and I put much more stock in their assessments than I do yours.

If you feel pistols are superior weapons, you should in no way be inconvenienced by a ban on assault weapons.

Click to expand...

That depends on exactly what is to be banned. Most AWB proposals also include a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds, that include many pistols, like one that I now own. The fact that some crimes are assumed to "depend on" the use of an "assault rifle" does not take into account that most gun crimes, the vast majority, neither use nor require, that type of weapon. The last AWB did not reduce US gun crime, in fact, after its expiration, US gun crime dropped further. The CO "joker" shooter actually took less lives because the 100 round "junk" magazine that he selected (yet likely never tried out in advance) caused a jam.

Captain America said:

I can only speak of the hunters I know. Not for all of them, of course. And the answer to your question is zero. Zilch. None. Nada.

But, (disclaimer) I am not a gun expert so I am not sure what is or is not considered to be an M1 variant.

I did, however, hunt with an M1 carbine, 1943 issue, when I was a kid. It was either that or a shotgun. That's all I had available to me. I never killed anything with it though. It had a 30 round banana clip and it looked way cool though. It wasn't nearly as accurate as the guns I use now.

In MY deer hunting circle, we have three 30.06 hunters. One Winchester 30.30 lever action hunter (I've offered him some of my other more accurate guns but he prefers his 30.30.)

Once, and only once, I took my Chinese SKS out hunting. I totally blew away a doe with it. The woods lit up! Rata-ta-a-tata-tat! It was awesome. It scared the rest of the guys in our woods. They said they hit the ground when I started shooting. They kindly asked me not to use it again up there. So, I didn't.

Click to expand...

The M1 was a .306 round, typical deer rifle configuration.

Captain America said:

I know a lot of gun nutters that use that excuse. There may be some validity to it. Look what's happening over in Syria.

Click to expand...

Or you can just refer to what the framers themselves said about it. Already posted in another thread.

Catawba said:

.

BS, I've read countless reports from both the US and Mexico that said the same thing as the Police Chief stated, and I put much more stock in their assessments than I do yours.

If you feel pistols are superior weapons, you should in no way be inconvenienced by a ban on assault weapons.

Click to expand...

And if they were written like that, they are all opinion pieces.

Where are the references? Where are the statistics? Where is the evidence?

Oh, that's right, there are none. Because this is all about opinion, not facts.

So come on back when you have facts.

My biggest problem is once again shown, that nobody can actually define what an "assualt weapon" actually is. Even here, we can't nail down any definition that does not involve banning many other weapons (and at the same time leaving many more weapons just as if not more deadly unbanned).

The reason I object to the bans is that 99% of them are garbage.

Captain America said:

I can only speak of the hunters I know. Not for all of them, of course. And the answer to your question is zero. Zilch. None. Nada.

I did, however, hunt with an M1 carbine, 1943 issue, when I was a kid. It was either that or a shotgun. That's all I had available to me. I never killed anything with it though. It had a 30 round banana clip and it looked way cool though. It wasn't nearly as accurate as the guns I use now.

Once, and only once, I took my Chinese SKS out hunting. I totally blew away a doe with it. The woods lit up! Rata-ta-a-tata-tat! It was awesome. It scared the rest of the guys in our woods. They said they hit the ground when I started shooting. They kindly asked me not to use it again up there. So, I didn't.

Click to expand...

OK, you know nobody that does, but you did use an M1 variant as a child (the M1 Carbine). Which is a shorter, clip fed variant of the M1 rifle.

And WTF were you doing trying to shoot a deer on full auto? Sorry, reading things like this either my "BS detector" or my "dumb f**k detector" tends to go off. There is absolutely no reason to ever take a full auto out hunting, unless what you are hunting has the capacity to hunt you in return. An ollegally converted AK copy, and you admit you own it yourself?

And you expect to now be taken seriously?

ttwtt78640 said:

That depends on exactly what is to be banned. Most AWB proposals also include a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds, that include many pistols, like one that I now own. The fact that some crimes are assumed to "depend on" the use of an "assault rifle" does not take into account that most gun crimes, the vast majority, neither use nor require, that type of weapon. The last AWB did not reduce US gun crime, in fact, after its expiration, US gun crime dropped further. The CO "joker" shooter actually took less lives because the 100 round "junk" magazine that he selected (yet likely never tried out in advance) caused a jam.

Click to expand...

This is very much my problem also. These bans never work, because they can't even agree to what the problem is in the first place.

Heck, I bet none of them can tell me how many kids were shot in the worse school masssacre in US history.

LaMidRighter said:

The M1 was a .306 round, typical deer rifle configuration.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but my credability with this guy is about zero. Talks about banning assault weapons, then claims to have a full auto AK-47 clone. Says nobody goes hunting with weapons like this, then he tells us he does it at least 2 times. Does not know what an M1 is (or it's variants), but talks about going hunting with one as a child.

I do not believe he is a hunter, or has ever fired a gun. Is just making up stories, none of them making any sense to those that understand what he is trying to say.

Oozlefinch said:

Heck, I bet none of them can tell me how many kids were shot in the worse school masssacre in US history.

Click to expand...

Zero.


What do I win?

ttwtt78640 said:

That depends on exactly what is to be banned. Most AWB proposals also include a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds, that include many pistols, like one that I now own. The fact that some crimes are assumed to "depend on" the use of an "assault rifle" does not take into account that most gun crimes, the vast majority, neither use nor require, that type of weapon. The last AWB did not reduce US gun crime, in fact, after its expiration, US gun crime dropped further. The CO "joker" shooter actually took less lives because the 100 round "junk" magazine that he selected (yet likely never tried out in advance) caused a jam.

Click to expand...

Police enforcement agencies, and most reasonable gun owners, do not agree with your opinion of assault weapons, or high capacity magazines. I own guns myself. No one is suggesting banning all guns, just the guns, and magazines capable of mass killings without reloading.

Catawba said:

Police enforcement agencies, and most reasonable gun owners, do not agree with your opinion of assault weapons, or high capacity magazines... No one is suggesting banning all guns, just the guns, and magazines capable of mass killings without reloading.

Click to expand...

Why? Even a novice can reload a pistol in a few seconds. It's not a difficult task, especially if you bring a few spare magazines with you.

I own guns myself

Click to expand...

What militia do you belong to? :roll:

Catawba said:

Police enforcement agencies, and most reasonable gun owners, do not agree with your opinion of assault weapons, or high capacity magazines. I own guns myself. No one is suggesting banning all guns, just the guns, and magazines capable of mass killings without reloading.

Click to expand...

I suppose, to those that see fully funding 8 (or less) days of federal spending as a serious effort to reduce the deficit, that a law yielding a possible reduction to .2% (or less) of gun crime is a serious effort to keep us safe. Even in a record year for such "assault rifle" crime that is still a reduction of miniscule proportions.

In 2009, the last year in which numbers have been reported, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.

Click to expand...

Quote taken from: U.S. Murders: All 13,636; Hands and Feet 801; Assault Rifles: less than 348

Republic Now! said:

Zero.


What do I win?

Click to expand...

A photograph of Andrew Kehoe's car.



Mr. Kehoe in 1927 (when a fully automatic Thompson Machine Gun was legal for anybody to own) took lots and lots of explosives, and blew up 38 children, 2 teachers, the School Superintendent, and 2 bystanders with a series of explosions. The only other death was his wife, who he bashed in the head with a hammer.

And these were all done by a series of explosions, both inside the school, his farm outside of town, and in his car, where he deliberately pulled up to the scene of the disaster and called the Superintendent over to his car before he detonated it.

46 people dead, 58 injured, the vast majority of them children.

And not a single gun involved.

If people snap and decide to kill lots and lots of people, they are going to do it. Mr. Kehoe could have gone to the local hardware store and bought a fully-automatic Thompson and stormed in and shot everybody, but he did not. He wanted to blow everybody and everything up.

Crazy people do crazy things.

Catawba said:

Police enforcement agencies, and most reasonable gun owners, do not agree with your opinion of assault weapons, or high capacity magazines. I own guns myself. No one is suggesting banning all guns, just the guns, and magazines capable of mass killings without reloading.

Click to expand...

And how long does it take to reload?

I can reload an internal M1 magazine in a few seconds. A few seconds less for a drop-out magazine, since I would just let it fall to the floor.

Most of these morons are really stupid. They get these giant clips, and spray bullets everwhere. Then when their guns jam, they flee or shoot themselves. They can't even clear their own weapons in case of a malfunction.

Yet, the people that want to go around banning weapons seem to miss the fact that the most dangerous of us around have the training, but do not go around doing these kinds of things regularly. To me, the biggest consistant fact is not the shootings, but the mental problems of those involved.

And nobody seems to mention the over 30 bombs that had to be disarmed from James Holmes' apartment. It took police over 2 days to disarm all of the bombs and boobytraps there.

Oozlefinch said:

A photograph of Andrew Kehoe's car.

Mr. Kehoe in 1927 (when a fully automatic Thompson Machine Gun was legal for anybody to own) took lots and lots of explosives, and blew up 38 children, 2 teachers, the School Superintendent, and 2 bystanders with a series of explosions. The only other death was his wife, who he bashed in the head with a hammer.

And these were all done by a series of explosions, both inside the school, his farm outside of town, and in his car, where he deliberately pulled up to the scene of the disaster and called the Superintendent over to his car before he detonated it.

46 people dead, 58 injured, the vast majority of them children.

And not a single gun involved.

If people snap and decide to kill lots and lots of people, they are going to do it. Mr. Kehoe could have gone to the local hardware store and bought a fully-automatic Thompson and stormed in and shot everybody, but he did not. He wanted to blow everybody and everything up.

Crazy people do crazy things.

Click to expand...

The obvious solution is to ban cars.


Well, not all cars. Just assault cars. These would be any car capable of going over 100 mph with any body mods that impose increased threat. Also, limit gas tanks to 10 gallons. You don't NEED a car with any of these things, so why do you care so much? Honestly anyone who opposes these seems like a nutter to me.

Republic Now! said:

Why? Even a novice can reload a pistol in a few seconds. It's not a difficult task, especially if you bring a few spare magazines with you.
What militia do you belong to? :roll:

Click to expand...

I don't think our society will evolve to a complete ban on guns for a couple hundred more years. The evolution of society in the US has been slowed by those that misunderstand the 2nd Amendment.

I have no problem with people having guns for home protection or hunting. Where I, and most people now, are drawing the line is with guns and magazines made for the specific purpose of killing large numbers of people without reloading.

That is needed neither for home protection or hunting.

Catawba said:

I don't think our society will evolve to a complete ban on guns for a couple hundred more years. The evolution of society in the US has been slowed by those that misunderstand the 2nd Amendment.

I have no problem with people having guns for home protection or hunting. Where I, and most people now, are drawing the line is with guns and magazines made for the specific purpose of killing large numbers of people without reloading.

That is needed neither for home protection or hunting.

Click to expand...

Please enlighten me on what the second amendment actually means then.

Oozlefinch said:

I can reload an internal M1 magazine in a few seconds. A few seconds less for a drop-out magazine, since I would just let it fall to the floor.

Click to expand...

Glad to here the ban on high capacity mags will not be a hardship for you! Thanks for sharing that!

Oozlefinch said:

A photograph of Andrew Kehoe's car.

Mr. Kehoe in 1927 (when a fully automatic Thompson Machine Gun was legal for anybody to own) took lots and lots of explosives, and blew up 38 children, 2 teachers, the School Superintendent, and 2 bystanders with a series of explosions. The only other death was his wife, who he bashed in the head with a hammer.

And these were all done by a series of explosions, both inside the school, his farm outside of town, and in his car, where he deliberately pulled up to the scene of the disaster and called the Superintendent over to his car before he detonated it.

46 people dead, 58 injured, the vast majority of them children.

And not a single gun involved.

If people snap and decide to kill lots and lots of people, they are going to do it. Mr. Kehoe could have gone to the local hardware store and bought a fully-automatic Thompson and stormed in and shot everybody, but he did not. He wanted to blow everybody and everything up.

Crazy people do crazy things.

Click to expand...

Further, Mr. Kehoe did this because he was upset that his family land was "annexed" for the school he bombed, it was a severe reaction to emminent domain. Maybe we should take a look at what pushes people over the edge so it can be minimized(worst case) or halted.